Evaluates the downstream capabilities of multilingual LLMs trained on filtered pretraining data. It probes reading comprehension, general knowledge, natural language understanding, common-sense reasoning, and generative tasks across multiple languages. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FineTasks, SmolLM tasks suite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports average rank.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Multilingual Llm Downstream Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-multilingual-llm-downstream-eval)
---
name: multilingual-llm-downstream-eval
description: Evaluates the downstream capabilities of multilingual LLMs trained on filtered pretraining data. It probes reading comprehension, general knowledge, natural language understanding, common-sense reasoning, and generative tasks across multiple languages. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FineTasks, SmolLM tasks suite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports average rank.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2502.10361
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# multilingual-llm-downstream-eval
> Enhancing Multilingual LLM Pretraining with Model-Based Data Selection — Messmer et al. (2025) (arXiv:2502.10361, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the downstream capabilities of multilingual LLMs trained on filtered pretraining data. It probes reading comprehension, general knowledge, natural language understanding, common-sense reasoning, and generative tasks across multiple languages.
## Datasets
- **FineTasks** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SmolLM tasks suite** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `average rank` **(primary)** — range: other
- Models are ranked per task based on accuracy (1 = best). The average rank is computed across all tasks and languages. Lower values indicate better overall performance.
- `task accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Standard exact-match or option-selection accuracy per downstream benchmark task (e.g., MMLU, ARC, HellaSwag, Belebele).
## Input / output format
**Input**: Text prompts from downstream evaluation benchmarks (FineTasks/SmolLM) covering reading comprehension, general knowledge, NLU, common-sense reasoning, and generation.
**Output**: Model-generated text or selected options for each benchmark task.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_average_rank(task_accuracies):
# task_accuracies: dict of {task_name: {model_id: accuracy}}
ranks_per_task = {}
for task, scores in task_accuracies.items():
sorted_models = sorted(scores.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
ranks_per_task[task] = {m: r + 1 for r, (m, _) in enumerate(sorted_models)}
avg_ranks = {m: sum(ranks_per_task[t][m] for t in ranks_per_task) / len(ranks_per_task)
for m in ranks_per_task[list(ranks_per_task.keys())[0]]}
return avg_ranks
```
## Common pitfalls
- Average rank is a lower-is-better metric, contrary to standard accuracy scores.
- Evaluation suites differ by language (SmolLM for English, FineTasks for others), so direct score comparison across languages is invalid; only the aggregated rank is comparable.
- Decontamination removes entire documents flagged by 13-gram overlap, which can disproportionately affect shorter documents or specific domains.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The average rank is computed across FineTasks performance of 1B-parameter models evaluated after 70B and 119B tokens were consumed.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{messmer2025enhancing,
title={Enhancing Multilingual LLM Pretraining with Model-Based Data Selection},
author={Messmer et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2502.10361}
}
```
- arXiv: 2502.10361